This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

REMINDER

Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

AP Reviews

That would be interesting with a modern system. I quite quickly turned it off with the 50E having got fed up trying to capture eyes right to eyes left action - either the focus system was too slow or right/left focus points were not far enough apart.

Click to expand...

I was lucky in that it worked a treat on my Eos 5 and I wish it had been carried on to the dSLR range.

Perhaps the different opinions from users indicates that Canon hadn't worked out how to make it adapt to a wide enough range of eye types?

Funny thing, but since multi-point AF arrived, I don't think I have ever read of a tester questioning the arrangement of AF points or whether we really need 23 or 47 or 58 or just 5 or 9. Don't recall, either, having read a magazine tester expressing doubts over the fixed pivot or restricted fold out (as compared to fully articulated) screen on digital cameras or questioning what is most effective in use. Questions, questions, but not being asked. Why?

Funny thing, but since multi-point AF arrived, I don't think I have ever read of a tester questioning the arrangement of AF points or whether we really need 23 or 47 or 58 or just 5 or 9. Don't recall, either, having read a magazine tester expressing doubts over the fixed pivot or restricted fold out (as compared to fully articulated) screen on digital cameras or questioning what is most effective in use. Questions, questions, but not being asked. Why?

I think we should be told.

Click to expand...

I can only assume that you don't read camera reviews very carefully then, if at all. We address these questions all the time.

My personal favourite method of focus point selection was Canon's Eye Controlled Focus, less so on the 5 and 50E, but particularly on the 3 and 30V, both of which worked outstandingly well for me. The most logical system of all IMHO.

Click to expand...

Nick, that's interesting. Wonder if that's connected to your reaction to EVFs? Admittedly I only handled an EOS with ECF a handful of times but I could never get it to work reliably for me. An unreliable camera is no good to a working photographer. Cheers, Oly

If we had, somehow, bypassed the pentaprism in the development of cameras and gone to the LCD directly, would anyone even consider the SLR design?

I freely admit that I lack a clear opinion on this but it is an interesting mental experiment to put yourself in the position of meeting the bulky, noisy dSLR after only ever using silent, small LCD equipped cameras. Would you pull out your wallet?

Click to expand...

Senator, have you handled some of the latest, small, DSLRs and tripped their shutters? Mere whispers compared to Sony mirrorless A series in standard setting. Cheers, Oly

Best AF module I ever used was the Nikon Multi-Cam 2000 in the D2h - 11 points with focus tracking that glued the subject to the focus point and just would not let go. Even the benchmark Multi Cam 3500 51 point was not as capable in this respect, from my personal experience, the 2000 is where I got my sloppy habit of focus and recompose using tracking to keep everything crisp.

No need to touch the buttons, the screen, nothing, just lock focus and you are sorted...

Pentax K3ii. The cons are a lack of touch screen/articulated screen; wifi and only 27 AF points.

None of those things are what I need but maybe there is an expectation that all cameras should have them. Certainly reviews will help push opinion that way. I wonder to what extent the megapixel race (not a good thing in my opinion and a major reason why I have stuck with an older camera) was also influenced by reviews pointing out that other camera had more pixels.

The inclusion of wi-fi and an articulated, touch screen would obviously have pushed the price higher than the price which compares rather well to its rivals.

Pentax K3ii. The cons are a lack of touch screen/articulated screen; wifi and only 27 AF points.

None of those things are what I need but maybe there is an expectation that all cameras should have them.

Click to expand...

No, not quite. Cons in reviews are mainly used to highlight differences compared to major competitors, which in this case would be cameras like the Canon EOS 70D and Nikon D7200. But while we have to point them out - that's what a review is for - it's up to the reader to decide whether they wouldbe a problem for them personally. You are absolutely free to disagree with our conclusions, but do bear in mind that they are the considered opinions of experienced photographers who will have used most, if not all, competing models.

Certainly reviews will help push opinion that way. I wonder to what extent the megapixel race (not a good thing in my opinion and a major reason why I have stuck with an older camera) was also influenced by reviews pointing out that other camera had more pixels.

Click to expand...

The 'megapixel race' is a term that stuck early in the development of digital cameras, when it was often considered that more pixels gave worse image quality. It's since become obvious to most rational observers that newer sensors are better than older ones, and cameras with more pixels generally give higher image quality - it's only in the extremes of the ISO range that relatively low-MP cameras like the Sony A7 S have any real advantage. The main advantages to low pixel counts are small file sizes.

The inclusion of wi-fi and an articulated, touch screen would obviously have pushed the price higher than the price which compares rather well to its rivals.

Click to expand...

This all depends on which cameras you consider to be its rivals, which is slightly complicated by the way Pentax DSLRs tend to sit between their Canon and Nikon rivals in terms of specs and price. For example the Canon EOS 70D, with a fully-articulated touchscreen and built-in Wi-Fi, costs less than the K3 II, but the top-end EOS 7D Mark II is much more expensive, yet doesn't have these features.

For static subjects it's plenty. However if you wish to track subjects which are moving around the frame, then having a large number of densely-packed focus points simply works better. This is one of the features that justifies spending such a large amount of money on a higher-end camera, so it seems only fair to prospective buyers point it out.

Nick, that's interesting. Wonder if that's connected to your reaction to EVFs? Admittedly I only handled an EOS with ECF a handful of times but I could never get it to work reliably for me. An unreliable camera is no good to a working photographer. Cheers, Oly

Click to expand...

The EVF thing for me is due to my balance disorder, which is otherwise generally under control, but an EVF for some reason just sends signals my brain can't cope with. It's actually an inner ear issue physically.

As to ECF, I found it fine, if of limited use, on my EOS 5, not very good at all on the 50E, but highly reliable on the 30V and 3. Even with glasses. Luck of the draw, it seemed to work really well for some, not for others.

[on 27 AF points not being enough]For static subjects it's plenty. However if you wish to track subjects which are moving around the frame, then having a large number of densely-packed focus points simply works better. This is one of the features that justifies spending such a large amount of money on a higher-end camera, so it seems only fair to prospective buyers point it out.

Click to expand...

Fascinating... I'd love to know if there are different Phase Detect point pitches - does 11 points have larger sensors which come closer to eachother meeting at their edges, while 51 have smaller points edge to edge to pack in to the same area? I only ask because from hazy recollection the 11 point and the 51 covered the same viewfinder area...

I frequently set the AF area to suit my subject while shooting handheld, yes. Indeed I have done since I got my first SLR with multi-point AF, a Canon EOS 50E in about 1995. Of course with certain types of subject it's not practical. Then again, I don't just shoot sports, wildlife and street.

I can only assume that you don't read camera reviews very carefully then, if at all. We address these questions all the time.

Andy Westlake
Technical Editor, Amateur Photographer

Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

Sure, you can re-arrange the focus point shooting handheld and I occasionally do, 1. if the subject requires, and, 2. if there's time. But then the camera manufacturer has not only over-endowed me with focus points in many cases, they have also provided a handy little button called Focus Lock. I tend to use this on occasion, too.

Well, in my lifetime I've probably read more reviews and tests than some young whippersnappers have had hot dinners! So there!

Let's take the latest hard copy of AP in my possession, 18 July 2015. The Leica Q is tested. Unless I've missed it somewhere, not only does the tester not ask questions over the design, consult Leica UK or Leica Germany over design decisions such as number of focus points, nor do they consider whether all those AF points are actually needed, they do not even mention how many AF points the camera has whether in text or in the camera specification.

Ooops!

If my ageing memory is correct, Leica were the first company to use an EVF in a still camera. Another fact missed by the tester in his introductory paragraph.

Unless I've missed it somewhere, not only does the tester not ask questions over the design, consult Leica UK or Leica Germany over design decisions such as number of focus points, nor do they consider whether all those AF points are actually needed, they do not even mention how many AF points the camera has whether in text or in the camera specification.

Ooops!

If my ageing memory is correct, Leica were the first company to use an EVF in a still camera. Another fact missed by the tester in his introductory paragraph.

Double ooops!

Cheers, Oly

Click to expand...

Hi,

I'm The Tester, as you'll see by my name printed in bold on the page.

The Leica Q uses a contrast detection system that has almost edge to edge focusing, hence why it is possible to use the touchscreen to focus.

To work out the number of available focus positions I could have shifted the focus point across every horizontal and then vertical position and then multiplied these numbers, as I have done on previous tests. The result would have been in the hundreds and at that point it does become somewhat redundant - touch the screen where you want to focus and it will focus there.

As Andy said, we have a limited space in the magazine and we have to decide what the priorities should be within that limited number of words. I could have written a lot about the fact that the Leica Q AF system is rumoured to have been developed in association with Panasonic, who Leica have a working relationship with. Or I could have very precisely timed the speed of the AF system.

However, in this case I judged that the experience of using the Leica Q was of key importance above some of the more analytical technical specifications. This is a camera craves to be used. It isn't a sports or wildlife camera, where the number of frames per second or the buffer using different SD cards is of prime importance. Obviously on a Nikon D4S it is.

Myself and Andy made judgement call that what Leica owners, potential Leica owners, and those who just like taking photos, would want to know most, was what the Leica Q is like to get out with.

Most Leica users want to know how it compares to a Leica M series camera, and that was the focus of the review, which means that the handling, EVF, Touchscreen and Manual focusing was key.

Apologies if this review wasn't for you. We can't please everyone in the limited 3,5 or 6 pages we have for reviews.

As for the Leica making the first electronic viewfinder, well, I didn't know that, or if I did I have suppressed it in my brain to be recalled for a pub quiz.

The important point here is the fact that Leica has integrated an electronic viewfinder, rather than making it an optional accessory (I'm not including the rebadged Panasonic models). This paves the way for a Leica M with an electronic view finder, which is fantastic as it shows Leica is back to being forward-thinking rather than just relying on the loyal customers who only want to use a rangefinder system.